You are on page 1of 2

Rule 3.

Parties to Civil Actions


Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. — Parties in interest without whom no
final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.

Representatives Edcel C. Lagman, et al. vs. Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, et
al./Eufemia Campos, et al. vs.President Rodrigo Duterte, et al./Loretta Ann P. Rosales
vs.President Rodrigo Duterte, et al./Christian S. Monsod, et al. vs. Senate President
Aquilino Pimentel III, et al.
A.C. No. 235935/G.R. No. 236061/G.R. No. 236145/G.R. No. 236155
February 6, 2018 TIJAM, J.

Doctrine:
[A] party is indispensable, not only if he has an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also if his
interest is such that a final decree cannot be made without affecting this interest or without placing the controversy
in a situation where the final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. He is a
person whose absence disallows the court from making an effective, complete, or equitable determination of the
controversy between or among the contending parties.

Facts: These are consolidated petitions, 1 filed under the third paragraph, Section 18 of Article
VII of the Constitution, assailing the constitutionality of the extension of the proclamation of
martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao
for one year from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Petitioners in G.R. No. 235935 alternatively,
but not mandatorily, invoke the Court's expanded jurisdiction under Section 1 of Article VIII of
the Constitution. Petitioners in G.R. Nos. 235935, 236061 and 236155 pray for a temporary
restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin respondents from
implementing the one-year extension.

On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring a state
of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of
Mindanao for a period not exceeding sixty ( 60) days, to address the rebellion mounted by
members of the Maute Group and Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG).

On May 25, 2017, within the 48-hour period set in Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution,
the President submitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives his written Report, citing
the events and reasons that impelled him to issue Proclamation No. 216. Thereafter, the Senate
adopted P.S. Resolution No. 388 while the House of Representatives issued House Resolution
No. 1050, both expressing full support to the Proclamation and finding no cause to revoke the
same.

Three separate petitions were subsequently filed before the Court, challenging the sufficiency of
the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216. In a Decision rendered on July 4, 2017, the Court
found sufficient factual bases for the Proclamation and declared it constitutional.

On July 18, 2017, the President requested the Congress to extend the effectivity of Proclamation
No. 216. In a Special Joint Session on July 22, 2017, the Congress adopted Resolution of Both
Houses No. 2 extending Proclamation No. 216 until December 31, 2017.
Acting on said recommendations, the President, in a letter dated December 8, 201 7, asked both
the Senate and the House of Representatives to further extend the proclamation of martial law
and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao for one
year, from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, or for such period as the Congress may
determine.

Issue: Whether or not the approval of the President's request to extend martial law in Mindanao
is a valid congressional act.

Ruling: YES. The Congress is an indispensable party to the consolidated petitions.

In Marmo, et al. v. Anacay, the Court explained that:


[A] party is indispensable, not only if he has an interest in the subject matter of the
controversy, but also if his interest is such that a final decree cannot be made without
affecting this interest or without placing the controversy in a situation where the final
determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. He is a
person whose absence disallows the court from making an effective, complete, or
equitable determination of the controversy between or among the contending parties.

In these consolidated petitions, petitioners are questioning the constitutionality of a congressional


act, specifically the approval of the President's request to extend martial law in Mindanao.
Petitioners in G.R. No. 235935 and 236155 have also put in issue the manner in which the
Congress deliberated upon the President's request for extension. Clearly, therefore, it is the
Congress as a body, and not just its leadership, which has interest in the subject matter of these
cases. Consequently, it was procedurally incorrect for petitioners in G.R. Nos. 235935, 236061
and 236155 to implead only the Senate President and the House Speaker among the respondents.

Arguably, Senator Aquilino Pimentel III and House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez can be said to
have an interest in these cases, as representatives of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
respectively. However, considering that one of their main contentions is that the "supermajority"
of the Congress gravely abused their discretion when they allegedly railroaded the adoption of
Resolution of Both Houses No. 4, it stands to reason and the requirements of due process that
petitioners in G.R. Nos. 235935 and 236061 should have impleaded the Congress as a whole. 83
Needless to say, the entire body of Congress, and not merely the respective leaders of its two
Houses, will be directly affected should we strike down the extension of martial law. Thus, We
hold that in cases impugning the extension of martial law for lack of sufficient factual basis, the
entire body of the Congress, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, must be
impleaded, being an indispensable party thereto.